Fur Is Dead! … Or Is It?

This week, Advocacy for Animals welcomes a new contributor, Marla Rose, a writer and longtime activist on behalf of animals.HSUS anti-fur campaign poster--HSUS.Rose has been a humane educator with a large animal shelter, the founding chairperson of the vegan advocacy group EarthSave Chicago, and an organizer for Chicago VeganMania, a showcase for vegan culture and community. In 2009 Rose and her husband, John Beske, were named Activists of the Year by Mercy for Animals. Rose’s writings can be also found at Vegan Feminist Agitator and Examiner.com, where she blogs about vegan restaurants in Chicago.

One common slogan many animal advocates are familiar with is “Fur is dead!,” always accompanied by graphic, horrifying images of tortured foxes and minks. The statement, though, can be looked at from at least two perspectives. Fur is, of course, the pelt of a dead animal, usually killed for the simple fact of its skin. A fur coat represents slaughtered animals quite plainly. I can only wonder why, though, after all these years of public outcry and education, fur is still something animal advocates are fighting against. Shouldn’t fur, at least as an issue, be dead already, left in our collective past along with other barbaric practices, like guillotines and exotic animals being killed to entertain spectators in the Colosseum?

Unfortunately, the use of fur in and as apparel continues. Whether they end up as rabbit fur-lined gloves, mink or mink-trimmed coats or fox fur hats, over 50 million fur-bearing animals, including dogs and cats, are killed each year for their pelts, the vast majority on so-called ranches and the rest caught with leg-hold and other traps in the wild. Regardless of the animals’ origin, the support of the fur trade is incomprehensible to those of us who value compassionate living.

Fur farm--Global Action Network.Minks, the animals most commonly used for their fur, are solitary, far-ranging and semi-aquatic animals related to weasels; they do not adapt well confined in a cage surrounded by so many others. According to the organization Mercy for Animals, cannibalism (including infanticide), self-mutilation through feet and tail biting, the development of stomach ulcers and enlarged adrenal glands are common results of this chronic stress these ranched mink suffer from due to their intensive confinement.

The ten million animals trapped in the wild for their fur don’t fare much better. While these animals are fortunate to have had a natural, free life prior to being caught, steel-jaw traps (the most common variety of traps, though snares, underwater traps and the neck-snapping Conibear are also used) are among the most cruel and torturous devises imaginable. If the animal is not instantly killed after the jaws of the trap slam shut on the animal, he will desperately gnaw at his trapped limb in a bid to escape. The animal can stay trapped like this in excruciating pain for hours or even days, as long as it takes for a trapper to return, and many eventually succumb to frostbite, shock or attacks by other predators.

Also be aware that these traps are indiscriminate: not only are fur-bearing animals vulnerable to them, but dogs, cats, birds and endangered animals are accidentally caught in the jaws of these horribly painful devices. (These unintentionally trapped animals are referred to as “trash kills” because of their worthlessness to the trappers.) When the trapper returns to check his trap, any animals caught are usually clubbed or suffocated by standing on the throat and chest, which doesn’t harm the valuable pelt. What is inside that pelt is of little regard.

Let’s look for a moment, though, at the vast majority of animals killed for their fur, those fifty million kept on farms worldwide, typically in open sheds, most commonly in Denmark, China, Holland, Finland, and the United States. Although the euphemistic words “farm” and “ranch” may lead people to believe that conditions are comfortable and even idyllic for the animals, this couldn’t be further from the truth. As with industrial agriculture, fur farms depend on an overcrowded, bare bones factory model in order to be economically viable. These foxes and mink (as well as ferrets, sable, raccoons, nutria, chinchillas, lynxes, rabbits and more) have virtually every instinct suppressed as they are crowded into small, bare wire-mesh cages, the hard metal hurting and cutting into their feet, and the animals in the lower cage rows have urine and feces from the cages above falling into their food.

Non-breeding stock mink are killed at approximately six months of age; as the killing of fur-farmed animals is not overseen by any humane slaughter laws, and the most important goal is always to leave the pelts intact, the methods are usually crude and gruesome, anything goes as long as the pelt is undamaged. Anal and genital electrocution (causing cardiac arrest while still conscious), suffocating with strychnine, decompression, and neck-breaking are the most common slaughter methods on fur farms. Breeding males and females, sometimes genetically cross-bred to create desirable white and pastel shades, are confined for years, imprisoned in a constant breeding cycle. It is a reprehensible system to give your financial support to, especially as we know that there are ample designers and retailers who don’t carry fur.

As if the unnecessary cruelty to animals weren’t enough, there are also the harsh environmental implications of the industry. In 2007, the Fur Council of Canada launched a “Fur Is Green” campaign to try to turn around the negative image of fur coats and associate the industry instead with the growing popularity of eco-fashion. Contrary to their greenwashing campaign, the fur trade, like all industrial animal confinement models, is deeply taxing to the environment: from water pollution to high energy costs, air pollution to the toxic chemicals used in processing the pelts, the end product is the antithesis of sustainability.

The industry holds up for comparison the production of faux fur, a product laden in greenhouse-gas-creating petrochemicals, in a specious attempt to bolster its own flimsy sustainability claims, but what they are not acknowledging is that there are many green alternatives to fur or faux fur, such as Polartec’s Eco-Engineering product line, many of Patagonia’s coats, Marmot’s UpCycle brand, and Vaute Couture (for links to all these brands, see list below under “How Can I Help?”). Further, these coats are made without exploiting or committing unconscionable acts against sentient beings.

Despite all this, it seems that every fall, the fashion glossies predictably insist that “fur is back!” with no factual reinforcement. The truth of the matter, though, is that the fashion media are not unbiased observers: through promoting fur as a popular, stylish choice, they drive their own advertising revenue and pump up retail sales. Collusion is the order of the day. Their vaunted revenue statistics include fur trim as well as the storage, cleaning, and restoration of fur. The industry has worked hard to make sure that designers and retailers have access to what is being framed as just another fabric choice.

Fur is found on everything from jackets and sweaters to little trinkets, but consumers are deceived by the inexpensive price tag and lack of a label into thinking that such items are not real fur. Due to a loophole in the Dog and Cat Protection Act of 2000 (which was the result of an investigation that found dog and cat DNA in many fur trim products, most commonly from China), items that cost less than $150.00 do not require a label.Far from consisting of remnants that would otherwise be wasted, fur trim has become a viable industry in and of itself as popular tastes have swayed away from the stigma associated with full-length coats; some 90% of foxes captive on fur farms for are killed for the specific purpose of becoming trim. Despite their efforts, according to a report on the Fur Commission’s own Web site, fur imports have experienced a sharp downward descent in sales since 2005.

Young squirrel nestles in a fur coat donated to a wildlife rehabilitator through the Coats for Cubs program--HSUS/A. Wolosuk.So what can an animal lover do? Educate. Let your friends and family members know the truth about this loathsome industry. Directing them to some of the resources cited below might be helpful. Most important, please support humane and sustainable alternatives to animal pelts. Given the availability of cruelty-free materials and all we know about the fur industry, no one should have to die for his skin.

How Can I Help?

Don’t wear or use fur—not as coats and jackets, nor as trim on hooded jackets or gloves, nor in the form of toys for humans or pets. If you can, speak up on behalf of animals when you see someone you know wearing a fur garment.

If you have any old fur items, donate them to the HSUS campaign “Coats for Cubs,” which collects and distributes them to wildlife rehabilitators, who use them to warm and comfort juvenile and injured wildlife.

33 Comments

Like you, I am shocked that fur is still popular with some people. I wrote a letter to NW mag a couple of weeks ago to ask them to stop featuring celebs wearing fur, or to make fun of those who do.
Why anyone would want to wear the result of this barbaric trade is beyond me.

In Montana there is a ballot initative in the works to ban trapping on Montana’s public lands. Lots of help is needed as the opponents have out of state support and a great deal of money fighting this!

I hate to bring some reality to this conversation, but I just cannot help. Already, you probably think that I am some uneducated, barbaric redneck. However, I am not. I am quite open minded on this topic. I do understand why people are against the fur trade. However, I wish for those on the other side of this issue to also be open minded. This article is very one-sided, and only reports one (small) side of the story.
Trapping = Many Americans partake in fur trapping because it is a part of their life and their heritage. It is how they make a living – hard work – these are no pencil pushers. They do not trap out of anger towards animals or think it is some game. It is quite the contrary – most of the trappers actually possess a deep respect for nature and animals (this respect may be difficult to understand for most). Also, to counter the idea that traps themselves are cruel, they are not. The things this article about them are true, yes, about 1% of the time. Many traps are designed to provide an instantaneous death to the trapped animals. (Something I as a human would appreciate when it comes my time.) The ones that do not kill the animal instantly do not inflict horrible amounts of pain on the animal. Most modern traps are designed in such a way to capture the animals foot without actually causing severe pain. How is this done? Well, just think about you own foot being trapped between a door and its frame, tight enough to keep you from pulling it out, but not tight enough to *harm the hide* or break the foot. Get the idea? Another point is that it would take the animals several days to reach the point of hunger or thirst that would make them so desperate as to gnaw on their own legs. Fortunately, nearly all traps are checked on a routine much more often than this. Also, the article mentions things like cats and dogs and birds being caught in these traps. Dogs and cats do not usually roam the “wild” in places where trapping most often occurs. And, these traps are triggered when and animal steps on them, their weight causing the trap to go off. A bird is much to light to cause this to happen.
Fur Farms – Yes, they do exist. And, yes, diseases and abnormalities do occur. (But don’t they also occur in household pets?) However, the problems with the “farms” listed in this article, once again, only represent a small minority of the actual farms/ranches. Things are put in place so that urine and feces do not fall into the bottom animals’ cages. It is called a board. Ever heard of it?
My final point is that the most of the animals taken by trappers are varmints. This means that they prey on other animals and/or crops. So, if we want other “innocent animals” to being able to maintain a steady population, we need to be able to control the varmint population. Also, if we want crops for a food source (something I’m sure you vegetarians realize), we need to keep varmint numbers down. Varmints may not infest your life, but just imagine having your house/apartment infested with mice and roaches. What do you do? You can do the “humane” thing – nothing. And just live with them. Do you see my point?
Look, I am not trying to be rude. I am just trying to get you to consider the opinions and perspectives of others. This is not a simple issue in which we can say that trapping is bad. It is much more complicated than that. People’s lives are actually impacted by this. For many, it is not just a matter of what is in their closet. Thank you for actually listening to my side of this issue. I’ve done the same for you.

Sentience is arguable, but I think humanity, as a species, should maybe be PAST the point of killing other living things for food or … fashionable accessories. It’s ridiculous. And to Daniel, you say you don’t mean to be rude, yet you word statements that could be simple into things like “It is called a board. Ever heard of it?”. Basically, what I’m saying is, try harder.

Well, you’re welcome. And thank you for your reasonable tone. Still, though you say you’re bringing “reality” to this discussion, all you’re bringing is disagreement, which is fine, but it’s not as though you’ve come here and schooled us in reality.

We wrote an article about the horrors of the fur industries because they exist; we didn’t make them up. If you want to claim that dogs and cats don’t get caught in traps, and that animals on fur farms don’t stand around in their own waste in wire cages (yes, we’ve heard of this fantabulous invention called the board), then you will have to provide proof that these incidents, which others have documented, actually never took place.

We present facts that show industries and professions and hobbies that result in pain and suffering for animals, and we provide a space for people to respond, as you have done. This site is called Advocacy for Animals. We advocate for animals.

BTW, “doing nothing” is not the only humane response to infestations by vermin (or “varmints”).

Actually, vermin control is very much so related to this article, seeing how many of these animals used for furs are in fact varmints, and many furs come from animals euthanize in varmint control. And, humane pest control? Foxes and raccoons are not bugs. Also, humane pest control still involves either killing the animals or relocating them. So, how is killing the animals with chemicals more humane? And, doesn’t that hurt our, and animals’, environments? Relocating them does not solve the problem either. It just moves the problem to the next guy. Don’t ignore the common sense involved.

Addressing “help animals”
Who are we to tell others what they should wear? Is it not a human right to make such choices about our attire? Look, I respect your opinion, and I would not try to force mine upon you. I, having no problem w/wearing fur, would never try to make you wear fur. Nor would I make fun of you for wearing clothes not including animal products. So, please, do not try to force your opinion on others. We are a nation of certain personal freedoms. I do not (maybe you do) believe in telling someone what they should or should not wear. I believe clothes should be appropriate for public (covering up all the important stuff). I also believe employers should be able to set dress codes. If an animal advocacy business wants to set a rule that all employees cannot wear clothes with animal products, that is fine. I just think that the widespread restriction of what is in the clothes is invading personal rights.

Daniel, it’s quite amazing how you, like many dissenters on our site, think that our saying something shouldn’t be done is exactly the same as passing a law that forbids you from doing so. Are you so defensive that you think that when another person expresses an opinion, it actually infringes on your rights?

Where do people get the idea that making a case for the animals’ side and trying to persuade readers is the same as (1) “forcing our opinion upon others,” (2) “setting rules,” (3) creating “widespread restriction,” or (4) “invading personal rights”? I would advise anyone who’s thinking along these lines to take a step back, take a few deep breaths, and try to be a bit more logical. No one’s forcing you to read this site, let alone force you to take off your fur coat.

Also, “humane pest control” is the opposite of killing. Killing does not equal humane.

And yes, you’re going off-topic with your talk of bugs. I don’t believe anymore that you know what you’re talking about. There are businesses that remove animals, or use humane ways of discouraging animals from settling where they’re not wanted (like geese). There are ways of keeping mice out of your house. We’ve done articles about it.

What is so funny about this is that you are not even taking the time to read my comment correctly. First off, you took all of those quotes out of context. Also, a couple of the quotes are not even something I said, so if you are going to quote me, please do it right. The comment I said those things in was a comment replying to those who had commented before me. I even made note of that. Please respect me enough to actually read my comments correctly.
I do believe that passing laws that stop trapping is invading personal rights and is forcing your opinion on us. If you don’t agree w/fur trade, fine. Don’t wear fur. You are actually right about one thing though, no one is forcing me to visit this site. I never made that claim either. I am willing reading on this site in order to hear what the other side says, because I believe in actually hearing out the other side (unlike some people, not to name names). I also wanted to give my two cents on some of the topics so that some of the other readers (that share your opinion) can also get the opportunity to see things from another angle.
The bug thing is your deal. I “googled” humane pest control(like YOU told me to), and guess what came up? Humane ways of getting rid of pests, in the bug form. So actually, I am not off topic, you are. Especially by referring to geese and mice. When I am talking about getting rid of varmints, I am talking about things like fur bearing raccoons. I am not worried about them getting into my house, I am more concerned with them eating quail and turkey eggs, as well as the feed I am providing for deer, turkey, dove, and many other desirable species. Thus, we control the raccoons.
I do know what I am talking about when it comes to fur-bearing animals. So please, take the time to read my comments correctly, because I take your comments and articles serious enough to do the same.

That isn’t what “taken out of context” means. The commenter “help animals” didn’t say anything about making laws that would force people to do anything, either. All that person did was write a letter to a magazine.

Time ago I saw a video where poor raccoons were skinned alive. Well, since I watched that, I’m still shivering and shocked by the gruesome of the video. I just simply believe that there are heartless people causing such a pain in innocent animals just for a few measy dollars. It’s unbelievable how this can be happening and the most sad part of this is, that there are people buying fur. I just try always to help organisations but sometimes I think that I can’t do enough…

I’m a vegan, and totally onside with this article, but I find it disturbing that after identifying the horrors of the fur industry, you refer readers to a company that makes coats from Merino wool. It is hypocritical to shun fur and wear wool (or leather, suede, silk, etc.). Just sayin’.

Which company is that, Flynn? Even if the company in question makes wool products, we referred people only to the products that were vegan. Yes, it’s ideologically inconsistent to shun fur and wear wool, and Marla Rose did not suggest that wool is an acceptable substitute for fur. Sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good; that expression may be a bit overused, but I think that there are good arguments on both sides regarding whether or not to support companies that make both vegan and nonvegan products.

For instance, in an all-too-frequent scenario, if a small, local, and independently owned soymilk company that only makes vegan products is bought by a dairy conglomerate, do you stop buying that brand? Would your interest in not giving a penny to anyone who ultimately earns profits from animal products preclude your interest in seeing vegan products be more widely distributed? Or, in the case of the coats, if it means that more people have access to, or become aware of the option of buying, vegan winter wear, isn’t that a good thing? And if the sale of non-wool coats makes a noticeable contribution to that company’s bottom line, doesn’t that encourage a major manufacturer to produce more non-wool wear?

I’m not necessarily arguing either way–personally, I’d rather stay away from huge conglomerates if possible–but rather pointing out one of the principles people can reasonably argue over.

I don’t know what your point is. Please explain. This article is about fur and alternatives to fur. If you are interested in quibbling about the content of the article, we did mention several other textiles that are alternatives to fur.

and yes, I know what you are saying about products like SILK–to buy or not to buy, because you are supporting a massive dairy company. On the one hand, we can argue that buying from them helps get a wider distribution of affordable vegan products, etc. However, there are other companies that make soy milk that are not dairies. Why not support them instead? Just sayin.

franziska: you ask, what is wrong with furs? did you read the article?!? that is what is wrong with furs! you say “fur animals are dead”…well that is because they were killed–for their furs…ummm… i’m wondering if this is an ESL situation, because your post, despite its brevity, makes little sense.

i hate propaganda and when you put cutsey pictures of baby animals next to the artical it just screams propaganda to me even if i agree with the artical. just put normal pictures of the animals being killed, that would be enough.

I would say that’s a problem of perception, then. If you agree with the article and think it’s reasonable, what is the problem? There are a limited number of illustrations available to us for use. We don’t just steal pictures from other sites as is all too common on the Internet. People seem to have a very loose understanding of copyright and just take what they want; but we only use those that we have been given permission to use. We appreciate your readership, but if you are able to write and illustrate a post in a better way, we would encourage you to do so, and we would be happy to follow your blog, as you follow ours.

And in case you were wondering, the “cutesy” picture of the squirrel is part of the Coats for Cubs initiative mentioned under “How Can I Help?”. That’s a squirrel who was cared for in the Coats for Cubs program, nestling in a fur coat actually donated to the program. Under those circumstances, I’d call it an illustration of the facts. How is that propaganda?

Human nature is funny–whenever someone suggests compassion for animals, you can be sure someone else will pop in and insist that it’s our right, even duty, to torture and kill animals for our own vanity. What do these “traditions” teach our children? That respect for our fellow living creatures is a joke or a Sunday sermon we can forget as soon as we walk out the door?